coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Dinkata.
7.  On 6 October 1994 the applicant confessed before the police to committing robbery together with two other individuals earlier that day. The stolen goods were confiscated by the police that same day.
8.  On 4 October 1995 criminal proceedings against the applicant were formally instituted.
9.  It appears that thereafter the case remained dormant until 5 October 2004 when witnesses were questioned.
10.  In the period between 2001 and 2004 the applicant left the country on a number of occasions and returned each time.
11.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant, who was abroad at the time, was appointed an ex officio lawyer and was charged in absentia with robbery.
12.  The first hearing of the case was held on 14 January 2005 in the applicant’s presence.
13.  In a judgment of 12 April 2006 the Pazardzhik District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for three years.
14.  Following an appeal lodged by the applicant’s co-defendant, in a final judgment of 12 October 2006 the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment including the applicant’s conviction and sentence.
15.  On 9 March 2007 the Pazardzhik Regional Police Directorate ordered the imposition of a ban on the applicant leaving the country on account of his conviction and pending his rehabilitation. It relied on section 76(2) of the 1998 Bulgarian Identity Papers Act.
16.  The applicant contested the order arguing that he was unable to provide for his family in Bulgaria and that he had employment opportunities in Serbia.
17.  On 25 May 2007 the applicant was refused passage by a border police official while attempting to leave Bulgaria in spite of the imposed prohibition.
18.  By a final judgment of 10 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that it was within the administrative authority’s discretion to impose such a ban and that its assessment was not subject to judicial control. At the same time, it held that the law had been complied with in that such restriction could be imposed in cases where a conviction was in place and prior to the rehabilitation of the convicted person and that other factors, such as the impossibility to find employment in Bulgaria, were irrelevant.
5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of a company Ytong, a.s. adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. The applicants received cash settlement for their shares based on an expert opinion.
6.  The contract between Ytong, a.s. and the main shareholder for the transfer of all assets to the main shareholder included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement of the minority shareholders with the settlement amounts was to be decided in arbitration before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (“the Arbitration Court”). The asset transfer contract was approved at the general meeting by votes of the majority shareholder.
7.  On 8 October 2003 the applicants lodged with a court an action whereby they asserted that the settlement for the transfer was not adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.
8.  On 14 July 2005 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because of the arbitration clause in the asset transfer contract.
9.  On 28 November 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision not finding a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding even for the applicants by virtue of Article 220k § 1 of the Commercial Code. It further held that the issue of the settlement amount was first of all a technical issue.
10.  On 24 June 2008 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law agreeing with the lower courts.
11.  On 17 March 2009 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal alleging violations of their right to a fair trial and prohibition of discrimination as manifestly ill-founded stating only that the opinions of the ordinary courts had not diverted from the generally accepted views on the matter.
12.  After the High Court’s decision became final on 13 January 2006 the applicants, with the exception of Mr Minarik, instituted proceedings before the Arbitration Court as envisaged in the arbitration clause. They nevertheless submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the arbitration clause was not applicable to them.
13.  On 11 October 2006 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Mr Navrátil and Mr Rybáček for lack of jurisdiction holding that they had not consented to the arbitration.
14.  On 26 May 2007 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Ms Minarik holding that it had no jurisdiction because Ms Minarik was a German resident and a Czech-German Bilateral Investment Treaty, which was applicable, envisaged right of access to court. On the other hand the motion for lack of jurisdiction concerning Day s.r.o. and Mr Suda was dismissed and the proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicants were born in 1936 and live in Kharkiv.
5.  The applicants used to work at a State enterprise as employees handling a sports stadium. On 10 January 2001 they were dismissed due to downsizing.
6.  On 8 February 2001 they instituted separate sets of proceedings before the Kyivskyy District Court of City of Kharkiv against their former employer, seeking reinstatement and compensation.
7.  On 9 February 2001 the court joined the two sets of proceedings. The first applicant further represented the second applicant in the joined proceedings.
8.  On 5 June 2001 the first applicant filed a complaint with the court, alleging that on 30 May 2001 the judge had refused to allow him to study the case file and that on 31 May 2001 he had been beaten by the presiding judge on the premises of the court.
9.  On 18 February 2002 the first applicant challenged the presiding judge. The judge declined to withdraw from the case.
10.  On an unspecified day the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Council of Judges against the presiding judge, alleging that the length of the proceedings was excessive. In a letter of 8 July 2003, addressed to the acting president of the court, the Council of Judges noted that the case had not been dealt with on the merits since 2001 and invited the latter to take action.
11.  On 27 August 2003, upon the first applicant’s new request, the presiding judge withdrew from the case.
12.  On 27 January 2004 the first applicant challenged the newly appointed presiding judge. The next day the motion was refused.
13.  On 28 January 2004 the court delivered a judgment confirming the legality of the applicants’ dismissal. The court ordered amendments to be made in one of the applicants’ labour book and awarded him a sum in salary arrears. The first applicant appealed.
14.  On 19 October 2004 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
15.  On 4 May 2007 the Appellate Court of Lugansk Region, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the first applicant’s appeal in cassation.
16.  The latter unsuccessfully sought extraordinary review of the case.
17.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants amended their claims and requested the national court to seek additional documents, including those from third persons, on several occasions. Out of thirty-one scheduled hearings, seven were adjourned because of the failure of the respondent’s representative to appear, four hearings were postponed as the judge was busy with another case or absent for other professional or private reasons, and four were adjourned due to the applicants’ non-appearance. The national court had to renew, at the first applicant’s request, the time-limit for lodging appeal which resulted in a delay of about three months.
4.  The applicants, Mr Aleksandar Nikolov, born in 1957, Mr Vasil Vasilev, born in 1960, and Mr Emil Rekarski, born in 1941, are Bulgarian nationals.
5.  On 7 February 2001 Mr Nikolov initiated proceedings for unlawful dismissal before the Pernik District Court. The court held hearings on 27 February, 15 March and 3 April 2001. In a judgment of 2 May 2001 it found in favour of Mr Nikolov and reinstated him.
6.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant’s former employer appealed before the Pernik Regional Court, which held hearings on 6 December 2001 and 7 February 2002.
7.  By a judgment of 7 March 2002 the Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
8.  On 14 May 2002 the defendant company submitted a cassation appeal. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) held a hearing in the case.
9.  In a judgment of 28 April 2004 it quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case.
10.  In a decision of 10 May 2005, which was not appealed against, the Regional Court discontinued on unspecified grounds the appeal proceedings initiated by the employer. Thus, the judgment of 2 May 2001 became final on 18 May 2005.
11.  Apparently, after his reinstatement, Mr Nikolov was dismissed again due to structural changes in the employer company.
12.  On 21 January 2002 Mr Vasilev instituted proceedings for unlawful dismissal and damages before the Lom District Court. The court held hearings on 20 February and 19 March 2002.
13.  In a judgment of 3 April 2002 it found in favour of Mr Vasilev, reinstated him and awarded him damages.
14.  On appeal by the employer submitted on 30 April 2002, the case was examined by the Montana Regional Court, which held hearings on 9 December 2002 and 11 March 2003.
15.  In a judgment of 27 March 2003 the Montana Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment in respect of the damages awarded and upheld the remainder.
16.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant’s former employer filed a cassation appeal. In a decision of 18 November 2005 the SCC discontinued the cassation proceedings as the employer had not paid the relevant court fee. This decision was not appealed against and on 23 December 2005 the judgment of 3 April 2002 became final.
17.  Mr Vasilev was reinstated on 8 February 2006. However, he could not take up his duties as while the proceedings were pending his contract had expired and had not been prolonged.
18.  On 8 January 2003 Mr Rekarski instituted proceedings for unlawful dismissal before the Sofia District Court. In a judgment of 14 July 2003 the court found in favour of Mr Rekarski and reinstated him. On appeal by the employer, in a judgment of 23 April 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the previous court’s judgment.
19.  The employer instituted cassation proceedings. The SCC upheld the lower courts’ judgments in a final judgment of 27 April 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Wuppertal.
6.  The applicant used to work as secretary on contractual basis at the Education Department of the Turkish Representation in Dusseldorf attached to the Ministry of Education.
7.  On 31 December 1996 the Ministry annulled the contract.
8.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant lodged a compensation case with the Ankara Labour Court against the Ministry of Education for her labour claims.
9.  On 29 December 1998 the labour court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction which was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 February 1999.
10.  Upon the decision of non-jurisdiction, on 15 March 1999 the applicant brought compensation proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court for her labour claims, such as bonus, notice and severance pay.
11.  On 21 January 2000 the court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.
12.  On 7 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 21 January 2002 holding that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of it.
13.  On 29 November 2002 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case as introduced out of time. Without examining the merits of the case, it established that the sixty days time-limit to bring compensation action before the administrative court had expired on 5 December 1996 whereas the applicant lodged her case with the court on 2 June 1997.
14.  In her appeal petition of 21 March 2003 the applicant challenged the judgment of the administrative court and requested a hearing in the appeal proceedings.
15.  On 25 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2002, finding it to have been in accordance with the law and the procedural rules. It decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing.
16.  On 28 June 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
17.  On 22 August 2006 the decision was served on the applicant.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Rencēni parish in Latvia.
6.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 26 in a remand wing of Valmiera Prison.
7.  On 14 October 2005 the Valmiera District Court (Valmieras rajona tiesa) convicted the applicant of resistance to a public official and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence. It appears that no appeal was lodged against this judgment.
8.  On the same date, the court ordered the applicant’s release.
9.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was placed together with other detainees had been very poorly lit and poorly ventilated. The toilets had not been separated from the living area and had emitted a foul smell that had lingered in the air. Detainees had thus been forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilets. The applicant also alleged that the cell had been overpopulated, each detainee having had less than the domestic standard of 2.5 sq. m of living space per male adult detainee.
10.  The Government disagreed with the applicant’s version of facts. They noted that cell no. 26 had had artificial and natural light and a ventilation system and they submitted that the toilet area in the cell had been separated off with a screen. The Government submitted that cell no. 26 had measured 23.6 sq. m. and had accommodated no more than eight detainees at a time, including the applicant.
11.  In addition, the applicant contended that he had not received any personal hygiene products, save for a quarter of a bar of laundry soap. He had not been provided with toilet soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste and toilet paper, in violation of domestic law (see paragraph 21 below).
12.  The Government did not deny that the applicant had not been provided with these products.
13.  On an unspecified date in October 2005 the applicant had received 200 g of laundry soap, one toothbrush, 50 g of toothpaste and one 30 m roll of toilet paper.
14.  On 13 July 2005, upon the applicant’s complaint addressed to the prosecutor’s office, the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde) informed him that the prison lacked the financial resources to provide him with the personal hygiene products as laid down in Cabinet Regulation no. 339 (2002).
15.  On 8 August 2005 the Valmiera Prison administration confirmed that there were no financial resources to provide the relevant personal hygiene products, save for one 200 g bar of laundry soap per month.
16.  On 22 July 2005 the National Human Rights Office replied to the applicant in general terms that they had found during their onsite visits that penal institutions did not comply with many legal requirements. They noted, among other things, that they had drawn the attention of the relevant domestic authorities in March 2005 to insufficient financial resources having been allocated to the purchase of personal hygiene products. Finally, the applicant was informed of his right to submit an individual petition to the Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 29 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.
6.  On 5 April 1998, the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
7.  On 15 May 1998 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant, along with 94 others, of membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On 27 May 1998 the criminal proceedings were initiated before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant was released pending trial.
10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was dismissed from his post at a factory of the General Directorate of State Monopolies (TEKEL) due to his detention. His reinstatement request was rejected by the administration on 13 August 1998, stating that his request could be considered on the submission of decision of acquittal.
11.  Subsequent to the abolition of State Security Courts, the applicant’s case was resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court as from 6 July 2004.
12.  On 22 November 2005 the case brought against the applicant and forty five others were separated and registered under a new reference number (case file no.2005/223).
13.  On 28 February 2006, the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.
14.  On 29 March 2006 the judgment was served on the applicant and became final on 5 April 2006.
4.  The applicant was born on 2 November 1936.
5.  On 14 August 1976 the applicant’s mother, N.B. lodged a case with the Bodrum Cadastral Court seeking annulment of the land survey conducted in respect of her land: plot no. 423.
6.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant became involved in the proceedings as the heir.
7.  On 7 August 1998 the court granted the request.
8.  On 25 May 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 7 August 1998.
9.  On 26 November 1999 a request for rectification of the judgment was dismissed.
10.  On 27 March 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the case.
11.  On 28 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 March 2000.
12.  According to the document submitted by the Government, on 17 October 2005 the rectification request of the parties was rejected.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident which caused the death of his wife and resulted in bodily injuries to him.
6.  On 13 April 2001 the applicant, along with three others, lodged an action with the Banaz Civil Court of First Instance, requesting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he had suffered as a result of the traffic accident.
7.  In the meantime, on 21 November 2002 the criminal proceedings which had been brought against the applicant before the Banaz Criminal Court concerning the same incident became final and the decision was submitted to the case file in question.
8.  At the hearing on 9 May 2003 the court ordered two separate expert opinions on the estimation of the applicant’s damage and compensation for loss of financial support.
9.  On 20 August 2003 and 8 October 2003 two expert reports were prepared.
10.  On 3 June 2004 the court commissioned another expert report.
11.  On 26 January 2005 the committee of experts requested further documents from the court.
12.  Upon the completion of shortcomings, on 8 September 2005 an expert report was submitted to the court.
13.  On 11 May 2005 the court ordered a supplementary report from the same committee at the request of the defendant, which was received on 16 February 2006.
14.  On 11 May 2006 the court partially granted the applicant’s request. It awarded the applicant 55,938 Turkish liras[1] (TRY) for pecuniary damage and TRY 1,500[2] for non-pecuniary damage, plus statutory interest running from the date of the event.
15.  On 16 January 2007 the judgment was served on the parties.
16.  The parties did not appeal against this judgment and it became final on 1 February 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Patras.
5.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.
6.  After four adjournments - three on the court’s initiative and one on the request of the applicant - on 14 March 2008 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 55,000 euros (judgment no. 1579/08).
7.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence, which was scheduled for hearing on 1st October 2010.
8.  After several adjournments the hearing of the appeal took place on 3 June 2011 and the applicant’s sentence was reduced to fourteen years of imprisonment.
9.  There is no indication in the case file whether an appeal on points of law was lodged challenging the appellate judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Athens.
5.  On 21 August 1997 he lodged an opposition (ανακοπή) with the Athens First Instance Civil Court challenging his arrest as compulsory enforcement measure regarding a decision of the Athens First Instance Civil Court issued against him for unpaid debt to an individual (decision no. 951/1995).
6.  On 30 October 1998 the opposition was rejected (judgment no. 8769/1998).
7.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant filed an appeal before the Athens Civil Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
8.  By judgment dated 21 June 1999, the court accepted the applicant’s appeal and the case was remitted to the Athens First Instance Civil Court in order to be retried (judgment no. 5619/1999).
9.  On 6 March 2001 a preliminary decision was issued partially rejecting the applicant’s opposition and asking him to submit supplementary evidence regarding the remainder of his allegations (judgment no. 1923/2001).
10.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant filed an application asking for a hearing date to be set as soon as possible.
11.  On 15 March 2004, after a subsequent re-hearing was held, the Athens First Instance Civil Court rejected the applicant’s opposition (judgment no. 1299/2004).
12.  On 2 February 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal challenging the First Instance Court’s decisions nos. 1923/2001 and 1299/2004.
13.  By judgment dated 6 March 2009, the Athens Civil Court of Appeal accepted the applicant’s appeal after quashing the ruling of the first instance court. Subsequently, after examining the applicant’s opposition de novo, the court held that it was well founded (judgment no. 1236/2009).
5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Hurstville, Australia.
6.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant, who lived in Ukraine at the time, was detained by the Kyiv police on suspicion of murder. On 27 February 2006 he was released.
7.  On 1 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Pecherskyy Court”) that his detention had been unlawful.
8.  On 20 March 2006 the Pecherskyy Court rejected his complaint. Its ruling was delivered following a hearing with the participation of the applicant and his lawyer on one side and the prosecutor on the other. The prosecutor advocated rejecting the complaint on the ground that the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the criminal procedural legislation.
9.  The applicant appealed.
10.  On 17 April 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal informed him that the hearing in his case would take place on 8 June 2006.
11.  However, when the applicant appeared in court on that date, he found out that the hearing had already been conducted, on 18 May 2006, and that his appeal had been rejected. As noted in the appellate court’s ruling of 18 May 2006, the prosecutor had been present and had pleaded the case.